Naval Pictures VII: Underway, Shift Colors!

[Daryk]

Now THAT is an awesome shot!  8)

[Ruger]

Now THAT is an awesome shot!  8)

It is a great shot. It also highlights something I find rather amusing: namely that the nation that pioneered the angled flight deck as a way to make jets work on carriers hasn’t had a carrier with one in about 35 years.

Ruger

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Remembering what day it is:

USS Arizona in New York Harbor, December 25th, 1916


https://tucson.com/news/retrotucson/rarely-seen-photos-of-the-uss-arizona-sunk-dec-in/collection_da38c166-ac2b-11e6-8ff3-674350ff0b87.html#1

[Dragon Cat]

It is a great shot. It also highlights something I find rather amusing: namely that the nation that pioneered the angled flight deck as a way to make jets work on carriers hasn’t had a carrier with one in about 35 years.

Ruger

Yeah I still cant understand whe the switch I know the harrier carriers of the Invincible-class didnt need them but the QE class was a perfect time to right that error maybe it's the jump and lack of catapults for the shorter launch deck

[I am Belch II]

The HMS Ocean was not that old, I think the Royal Navy should of kept it longer until the QE was ready.

[nerd]

Without wanting to breach any confidentiality rules, what are these ships like? I seem to recall a concern was the lack of crew and strength for damage control. Also, what are they like at sea?

Lots of space in the mission bay, and civilian cleaners in the living spaces. The engineering plant took up a lot of space for the intake and exhaust. I wasn't at sea, so I couldn't say much. Lots of rocking in the basin though.

[Dave Talley]

was that brit carriers pic shot from a spitfire?

[Kidd]

The HMS Ocean was not that old, I think the Royal Navy should of kept it longer until the QE was ready.

Ocean was built as a stopgap, operated as a stopgap, funded and disposed as such. She was sold right about the time a refit was pending and her crew was needed to get QE ready.

Yeah I still cant understand whe the switch I know the harrier carriers of the Invincible-class didnt need them but the QE class was a perfect time to right that error maybe it's the jump and lack of catapults for the shorter launch deck

CATOBAR carriers would have been around 40% more expensive to build and (perhaps more importantly) require much more crew.

[Cannonshop]

Ocean was built as a stopgap, operated as a stopgap, funded and disposed as such. She was sold right about the time a refit was pending and her crew was needed to get QE ready.
CATOBAR carriers would have been around 40% more expensive to build and (perhaps more importantly) require much more crew.

They would also be capable of fielding non-VSTOL airframes, have significantly longer reach with the airframes they carry, less reliance on in-flight refueling, a better interception window of incoming trouble, be able to support missions inland, and could be equipped with aircraft that aren't the F-35, (because there is exactly one company on earth producing VSTOL fighters like the class is designed to field, and they're not Hawker.)

things it can't do:

support aircraft that aren't VSTOL capable, to include the majority of 4th generation fighters and 5th generation proposals, thus tying it to one design that may fall out of fashion in spite of the sunk-cost fallacy.  it can't field EW aircraft, it can't field attack aircraft, the planes it's built to support have shallow fuel reserves and you can't field (naval) tanker aircraft from it.  it also can't launch/land fixed wing transport aircraft.

basically it's like a slightly longer LHA, but burdened with having to support fuel-gobbling jets with proportionally puny warloads that require more hangar time to keep running.

with a CATOBAR, the British government would have more options for their naval air arm's procurement, which tends to reduce both development and per-unit costs, as well as enabling the negotiation of better terms for support contracts even in sole-sourcing military procurement, since being able to land and launch a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) means you can threaten to walk on the contract if the vendor doesn't deliver and go with their rivals.  The QE basically lashes the Fleet Air Arm to Lockheed in Texas.

[Kidd]

since being able to land and launch a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) means you can threaten to walk on the contract if the vendor doesn't deliver and go with their rivals

Not necessarily, and this has been a major problem for British procurement.

Thing is, probably all of that was considered and weighed against the significant construction and operating costs of CATOBAR carriers, and the British military said, they'll take the STOVL option. I guess they've had wartime experience operating STOVL aircraft and know their limitations, and fgure they'll work within those limits.

[kato]

Thing is, probably all of that was considered and weighed against the significant construction and operating costs of CATOBAR carriers, and the British military said, they'll take the STOVL option.

Nah.

"The RN, however, sees the STOVL version of the JSF as its preferred choice for the carrier's embarked Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft."

FlightGlobal article, 1997, before the design choice for the carrier was taken.

They were weighing multiple options for the carrier at the time (see article), and ended up going with the solution that would both be cheap and support the preferred carrier aircraft.

[Kidd]

Nah.

"The RN, however, sees the STOVL version of the JSF as its preferred choice for the carrier's embarked Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft."

FlightGlobal article, 1997, before the design choice for the carrier was taken.

They were weighing multiple options for the carrier at the time (see article), and ended up going with the solution that would both be cheap and support the preferred carrier aircraft.

Correct. The F-35B and STOVL carrier config was always the primary intent.

After QE was laid down there was a serious inquiry into building POW as a CATOBAR, and possibly refitting QE later. The conclusion was that it would add at least a billion pounds to each carrier, and the notion was dropped.

[Wrangler]

I wondered if that's part reason why the French pulled out of the QE project. A third ship was to be built with intend for French to use as a CATOBAR use.

The conventional carriers with cats give longer range for their planes than VTOLs.  Plus you don't need go nuts armoring the flight deck with special expensive heat resistant nonskid so it won't be melted by the F35's engine.

Aside from QE-Class, last time they though of doing a COTOBAR carrier, when they pitched the CVA-01, which would been named HMS Fury.

[Kidd]

I wondered if that's part reason why the French pulled out of the QE project. A third ship was to be built with intend for French to use as a CATOBAR use.

The conventional carriers with cats give longer range for their planes than VTOLs.  Plus you don't need go nuts armoring the flight deck with special expensive heat resistant nonskid so it won't be melted by the F35's engine.

CVA-01 was all the way back in the 60s. The heat treatment isn't that big a deal, and a lot of ships are going to have it put on.

Charles de Gaulle was supposed to be a 2-carrier class as well, but the French ran out of money. (Which IMO illustrates the point...) So they're stuck with the unsatisfactory situation of having a carrier available only half the time.

Not that they didn't try again. The French paid a few million for the QE plans and were supposed to use them to design a CATOBAR sister ship for Charles de Gaulle. So far nothing has appeared from that. It's said that plans for CdG's replacement, hopefully by 2 carriers, will be announced next year.

P.S. it's unlikely CVA-01 would have been named HMS Fury. For one, it would not have been Fury but Furious which was the name of a WW2 carrier. But more importantly, a lot of more illustrious names were still available.

[GreyWolfActual]

...which would been named HMS Fury.

False.
The aircraft carrier that never was

[Cannonshop]

Not necessarily, and this has been a major problem for British procurement.

Thing is, probably all of that was considered and weighed against the significant construction and operating costs of CATOBAR carriers, and the British military said, they'll take the STOVL option. I guess they've had wartime experience operating STOVL aircraft and know their limitations, and fgure they'll work within those limits.

all of which doesn't invalidate my point; the QE is tied to a specific airframe.  Nobody else is developing a VSTOL/STOVL aircraft, because such aircraft are fuel-hungry with low payload and short ranges, and require significantly more maintenance downtime than equivalent non-VSTOL aircraft. 

There's a saying, "Trip over a dollar to save a dime".  The upgrade cost to operate any other fighter, including types developed from the lessons that will be presumably learned from F-35 will be horrendous, because the carrier can't operate anything BUT F-35 and maybe a few old Sea Harriers.  aside from those two types, it's strictly a helicopter carrier and oversized for the role.

[Kidd]

all of which doesn't invalidate my point; the QE is tied to a specific airframe. 

Well, yes. That was the plan. And whatever else the F35 is, it's at least better than the Harrier and the F16, even the latest 16V variant. I think the Brits are fairly happy with that.

[Cannonshop]

Well, yes. That was the plan. And whatever else the F35 is, it's at least better than the Harrier and the F16, even the latest 16V variant. I think the Brits are fairly happy with that.

I think you're overselling that.  it doesn't even match the F-16's strike payload, nor range, nor reliability, nor turnaround rate between sorties, nor reliability, and costs more than both in terms of maintenance man-hours and fuel use. (Reliability)

It also suffers in night and weather, and consumes more fuel per flight hour, with a shorter radius of action and earlier bingo time and that's comparison to an airframe that was intended to compete with the Mig 21 and the F-5 when it was designed as a Light fighter, not all-purpose.  Compare 'like to like', the F-18, Eurofighter Typhoon, or some of the newer models coming out of china or russia, because those are a lot more likely to be bases of comparison than the F-16.

Notably also, the F-16 is nearing 50 years as an operational design, and still has room to upgrade. (same for F-18), while Eurofighter is less than 30 years old, Griffin is also less than 30 years old and both are still in their prime period for incremental improvement, and Harrier is Obsolete and has been since before the Falklands war.

saying the "Newest of the new" is 'better' than an airframe that was outmoded by the 1980s and an airframe that represents the very FIRST of the 4th generation (aka "Oldest of the Last generation") really isn't saying a whole lot in terms of singing praises.

[Kidd]

I think you're overselling that.  it doesn't even match the F-16's strike payload, nor range, nor reliability, nor turnaround rate between sorties, nor reliability, and costs more than both in terms of maintenance man-hours and fuel use. (Reliability)

It also suffers in night and weather, and consumes more fuel per flight hour, with a shorter radius of action and earlier bingo time and that's comparison to an airframe that was intended to compete with the Mig 21 and the F-5 when it was designed as a Light fighter, not all-purpose.  Compare 'like to like', the F-18, Eurofighter Typhoon, or some of the newer models coming out of china or russia, because those are a lot more likely to be bases of comparison than the F-16.

Well, stealth aircraft with a huge electronic attack capability do add a couple extra degrees of complexity. Reliability shoudl improve as parts become more available.

The F-35 in clean stealth configuration has a pretty good combat radius with four (soon six) missile weapons, and can just act like the F-16 if it wants to by carrying external stores.

Yeah the Brits really only wanted a light-fighter-plus for their QEs. I'm sure we'd all have loved to see a Sea Typhoon but... the money wouldn't have been there.

Russian aircraft are built for speed not stealth, and the capabilities of those newer Chinese aircraft are very much in doubt, hobbled as they are by their engine tech.

[Daryk]

I think we're veering into the other thread's territory here... maybe take the airframe discussion over there?  ::)

[ANS Kamas P81]

Not to mention discussions of stuff that got us in trouble last time.



The Kennedy's officially commissioned as of yesterday.

[Daryk]

Shame on me for missing that!  Thanks for the pic ANS Kamas P81!

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Not to mention discussions of stuff that got us in trouble last time.

Yeah, maybe we should just stop talking about the F35 completely on the boards.

[I am Belch II]

Upset that the Kennedy came before Enterprise in the order of the Fords carriers.

[Daryk]

Having served on CVN-65, I'm just happy that there will be another one...

[Cannonshop]

Not to mention discussions of stuff that got us in trouble last time.



The Kennedy's officially commissioned as of yesterday.

I think I'll step away from it.  I just wasted waaaay too much time on a post that on re-reading would NOT be suitable for here. Let's look at some ships.

[Daryk]

So... is that painting supposed to be 1941 or 1942?  ???

[Cannonshop]

So... is that painting supposed to be 1941 or 1942?  ???

sometime before a more flexible navy that was less narrowly optimized turned that very expensive and specialized carrier into a reef.

[Daryk]

'42 it is!  ^-^

[Ruger]

Not to mention discussions of stuff that got us in trouble last time.



The Kennedy's officially commissioned as of yesterday.

I thought she wasn’t to be commissioned until 2022? Wasn’t she just christened yesterday?

Ruger